Back in 1967, the core of the U.S. market was still full-sized cars (54% of total sales), and the jumbo models from the “Low Priced Three,” aka Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth, accounted for a whopping 57% of that segment volume. So naturally Motor Trend lined-up a representative sample of each—in the highly popular 2-door hardtop body style—for a comparison test in the March 1967 issue.

There was one dirty little secret, though: Motor Trend did not sample the actual top selling American full-sized cars. If they had, then the full-sized Pontiac would have made the list instead of the Plymouth, since the big Ponchos actually ranked 3rd in sales behind Chevy and Ford in both 1966 and 1967.

However, for the sake of balance (and to protect advertising dollars) Motor Trend decided to include the Mopar product. Plus, to be fair, the full-sized Plymouth was still legitimately a member of the “Low Priced Three” bracket, even if it trailed Chevy and Ford in sales by a significant margin.

Also, as MT noted at the outset of the test, the “Low Priced Three” cars themselves were very similar in many ways—which made sense, as most buyers were (and are) conformists at heart, and Motown’s executives certainly loved the predictability and margins of tried and true products.

After all, when Plymouth had ventured from the pack in the early 1960s—with outlandish styling, and then starting in 1962 with “full-sized” cars that were noticeably smaller than Chevy and Ford, the sales results were absolutely disastrous.

Plymouth’s full-sized sales volumes starting creeping back up once the cars were conservatively redesigned and enlarged, ultimately returning to traditional full-size proportions for 1965.

By 1967 the “Low Priced Three” were once again marching in lockstep, and each received an extensive styling overhaul of their circa-1965 designs. Though platforms and powertrains were mostly unchanged, interior and exterior styling was extensively revamped as Chevy, Ford and Plymouth fought for their share of value-conscious big car buyers.

Chevrolet’s landmark 1965 styling (overseen by GM’s Chief Designer Bill Mitchell), with its mix of soft contours and crisp edges, great detailing and handsome proportions was superceded with curvier contours, more pronounced “hips” and more dramatically sloped rooflines for 1967. Mitchell’s flair was becoming ever more exaggerated as the 1960s came to a close.

Ford softened the lines of its big cars, moving from the very rectilinear ‘65/’66 style to a much more flowing look for 1967, while retaining the familiar Ford styling cues like the large, geometric tail lights. Conventionally attractive designs seemed to be the name of the game at Ford.

Plymouth also freshened up its styling, with smoother flanks and revised rooflines. The clean, conservative looks that highlighted size and substance remained intact, but the design was fresh enough to clearly signal that it was new for ’67. No more risk taking for Plymouth: management was clearly not going to repeat the sins of the past with polarizing size or styling.

Inside the cars, in addition to the expected trim and upholstery changes, the instrument panels were also all new, and designed with more emphasis on “safety” in advance of pending Federal regulations. However, in vintage Detroit fashion, the ’67 models from the “Low Priced Three” were mostly a triumph of style over substance—few engineering changes were made to dramatically alter how the cars would handle or perform.

So now, let’s get behind the wheel with Motor Trend to see what the editors thought were the high and low points for each car.

Given the similarities in the overall concept for each of these cars, design details took on added importance in delivering differentiation. Some features, like the “bucket” seats in the Chevy and Plymouth, were options and therefore buyers could choose what suited them best. Other elements, like the instrument panel designs, were fixed and either very good in layout and usability (Chevy, Plymouth) or more ergonomically challenged, like Ford with inferior lighting and harder to reach controls.

Motor Trend pointed out that for everyday driving, each of the cars did well, and frankly for real world buyers that was what mattered the most. When pushed, however, differences between the cars emerged. In the 1960s, Chrysler Corporation products had a strong reputation for superior handling, and the Plymouth Sport Fury lived up to that expectation in this comparison test. Plymouth’s brakes, however, were noted as being subpar, though that demerit was chalked up to previous hard use the test car had likely endured. Ford, on the other hand, was focusing more on ride comfort and isolation at the expense of ultimate responsiveness. Chevrolet seemingly split the difference between the two, and was regarded as a thoroughly competent handler. Plus, the Impala SS had the best braking performance of the bunch.

Key weaknesses became apparent in the test as well. One of the biggest noted was the poor quality control on the Plymouth. This was Mopar’s Achilles Heel in the 1960s (and beyond): lax workmanship and ill-fitting components did significant damage to the brand’s reputation. Chevrolet was also dinged for inconsistent quality control, though the specific Impala SS test car was praised for being exemplary (as it should have been—the car was undoubtedly a specially prepped PR unit). As for the Ford, Motor Trend’s editors couldn’t come to grips with the poor ashtray placement: in the smoke-filled sixties, this was apparently a major faux pas. I guess it’s the equivalent to today’s obsession with ample giant cup holders and a convenient place to access mobile devices….

Under hood, each car featured the tried and true: engines were representative of the “step-up” larger motors that had been on offer in the full-sized cars for several years. The Blue Oval’s 315 horsepower 390 4V V8 was silky and silent running, in keeping with the big Ford’s mission of isolation and quiet operation. Chevy’s 325 horsepower 396 4V V8 may not have been the most celebrated engine in the Bowtie lineup, but it was a big, easy running mill that offered good power with decent (for the time) fuel economy. Mopar’s 383 was a highly praised powerplant, and was noted as being the “pick” for Chrysler Corporation’s engineers. With 325 horsepower on tap with the 4V version fitted to the test car, the 383 was felt to be smooth and quick.

In addition to very similar performance results between the cars, the prices were also remarkably close. Using the prices listed by Motor Trend and assuming the upgraded engines, automatic, power disc brakes, power steering and AM radio, the Chevrolet Impala SS and Plymouth Sport Fury Fast Top both would have listed for $3,661 ($27,258 adjusted), while the Ford Galaxie 500 2-door Hardtop was slightly less at $3,490 ($25,985 adjusted). Adding air conditioning to the Chevy or Ford would have cost $356 ($2,651 adjusted), while cooling the Plymouth was slightly cheaper, at $338 ($2,517 adjusted). Of course, individual options would have changed the totals, but the basic pricing approach was virtually identical.

One thing I always find intriguing about cars from the 1960s was the extensive à la carte ordering of optional features, which could sometimes result in some perplexing combinations. A perfect example was the Galaxie 500 2-door hardtop tested by Motor Trend. While it sported the upgraded 390 4V V8 with Cruise-O-Matic for an extra $490 ($3,648 adjusted), the car still carried the basic “poverty” hub caps—you’d think someone could have coughed up an extra $21 ($156 adjusted) for the full wheel covers.

While the specifications, performance and prices for the cars were similar, when it came to sales there was no contest: Chevrolet was the hands down winner, selling 1,201,700 full-sized cars in 1967, compared to 877,127 full-sized Fords and 317,310 full-size Plymouths. That ratio of sales among the “Low Priced Three” was pretty consistent for most of the 1960s as Chevy consolidated its dominant position, while Ford held steady with over a 30% segment share. Pity poor Plymouth: after a sales collapse in the late 1950s (abysmal quality on the ‘57s) and early 1960s (bizarre styling), Mopar’s nadir came in 1962 when only 8% of “Low Priced Three” sales went to Plymouth. Thanks to the conservative styling and conventional sizing, the 1967 Plymouths were able to claw back up to 13% of the “Low Priced Three” full-sized car sales, though that was a still a far cry from the numbers enjoyed a decade earlier. In general, however, consumers seemed to have their fixed brand preferences, and there wasn’t too much market share swapping.

A perfect example of the loyal big car buyer was my Granddaddy Will and his Fords. The standard “Ford” was the only car he ever bought for his entire life, whether that was a Model T or an LTD. And he owned a 1967 Ford, which I vaguely remember from when I was very young. His car was a Galaxie 500 4-door sedan, finished in Dark Moss Green with a black vinyl top. Strangely enough, the interior of the dark green car was a light silvery blue—I even wondered if my memory was playing tricks on me, so I checked with my older brother: sure enough, that was the color combo. In a way it made sense, as Granddaddy Will bought whatever car he could get the biggest discount on, so a weird color/trim combination that was seemingly unsellable turned into gold for him. Though he did spring for the full wheel covers….

Granddaddy Will was also a pipe smoker, but somehow he managed to deal with the ashtray location that so flummoxed the Motor Trend editors. Of my limited memories of his Galaxie 500, one of the most pronounced (other than the curious colors) was the way the interior smelled of his pipe tobacco.

Granddaddy Will viewed cars as tools, to be used (hard) for their intended function, and then unceremoniously disposed of once their usable service life was done. While he may not have been as rough on his cars as the treatment this Dark Moss Green ’67 Galaxie sedan received in an episode from the TV series “CHiPs”, Granddaddy Will did not baby them at all. And for that reason, his loyalty to Ford was well earned—the cars did what he wanted with a minimum of fuss. No surprise that a full-sized Blue Oval was his pick once again for 1967—he was sticking with Ford.

However, if I were shopping for a new car from the “Low Priced Three” back in 1967, the Ford would not have come home with me. Not that I don’t like it—I can see the many merits of the Galaxie 500. Likewise, the Plymouth Fury also had plenty to recommend it, especially in terms of responsiveness. But I am a sucker for style, and that was Chevrolet’s calling card in the 1960s. While not the best Chevy design of the decade to my eyes (the ’65 would take that honor), I do like the swoopy ‘67s. I also think the Chevrolet’s interior, especially with the complete instrumentation, was really nice. And while the Chevy’s performance and handling may not have been the best, they were plenty good enough. Plus resale values were typically strong, making the big Chevy perfect for buyers looking to trade frequently for the newest style leader. So out of this selection of popular full-sizers, the Chevrolet would have been my choice. Make mine Marina Blue!

What would your pick have been in 1967 from the “Low Priced Three”?

106 Comments

That Pontiac would be #3 in sales is irrelevant, the point of this comparo is ‘Low priced 3″. There were times that Buick outsold Plymouth, but Buick and Plymouth didn’t compete in the same market. Coca-Cola outsells Champagne too.

Actually, what was becoming irrelevant was the notion of a “Low Priced Three.” In the 1950s, there had been clear delineation in price and size between Chevy/Ford/Plymouth and the pricier Pontiac/Mercury/Dodge models. However, in the 1960s the market became more complicated and competitive, with “premium” brands introducing cheaper models (e.g. Dodge Dart) and cheaper brands introducing upscale products (e.g. Ford LTD). By 1967, the vast majority of sales for Chevy/Ford/Plymouth big cars were the Impala/Galaxie 500/Fury III lines, all of which were base priced within around $100 ($745 adjusted) of the Pontiac Catalina line (a gap that basically vanished when these “Low Priced Three” models were equipped with V8s). For a lot of shoppers, that made the Pontiac a “no brainer”: it was seen as a “better” car for not much more money–hence the strong sales. Within a few years, references to the “Low Priced Three” would basically disappear as the volume selling full-sized cars moved closer together in price and positioning.

I would have chosen the Ford Galaxie 500 (preferably with a big block V8), I really thought Ford hit a homerun with the styling of the 1967 full sized Ford’s, 1967 was also my favorite year for 60’s Ford’s

The Galaxie really was the “looker” of the bunch. I always thought the ’67 Chevy was a big letdown after the ’65-’66. I really like the drivetrain and suspension of the Plymouth, but it’s looks are a little stodgy.

In ’67 I would go with the 390 Galaxie. Quiet, smooth, and good looking. When I was a teenager we had a ’67 Monterey 4 door, 390 2 bbl single exhaust. A little underpowered, the 45 extra HP of the 4 bbl would have been nice. I didn’t think it handled poorly for the times. The poverty caps are staying attached in the CHIP’s photo as the car rolls it’s front tires under the car. The deluxe caps probably would be in the air.

It’s cool that all 3 offered a 4 speed manual transmission, even if not often ordered on full size cars.

Two-thirds of a page devoted to detailed descriptions of the front directional indicator lights!

I rode around as a kid in a full-size ’66 Dodge wagon with the 383 as a kid, a car that was reliable, well assembled, and powerful, but the Plymouth here leaves me a bit cold, looking dated next to the Ford and especially the Chevy even though they were all facelifted 1965 designs. The Chevy had good engines too. But I’m a sucker for a smooth, quiet ride so I may have sprung for a Ford. (I’m also a sucker for a plush interior; if I really could get a Pontiac for about the same price I would have bought that.)

It’s interesting how the fourth paragraph of the article expresses their preference for bench seats over buckets in cars of this size. Given the habitual use of buckets (and the related inane consoles) these days, that statement now seems to be as dated as the need for an ashtray.

Way too many Chevrolets still had a Powerglide for 1967 plus in profile it just looks flabby, so Chevrolet is out.

The Ford looks much more svelte but the non-conformist in me is intrigued with the Plymouth.

Despite a Mopar bias borne of my Dad’s preferences, I can’t decide based on style. The Plymouth coupe doesn’t hold together visually for me. The sedanette roofline was apparently introduced to give the car a more formal look, but suffers by comparison to the wonderful reverse taper C-pillar it replaced. Pop had a yellow Fury 4 door hardtop (pictured) and though I liked the lack of a B-pillar, I never warmed to the spring clip headlight surrounds and tapered trunk; they didn’t seem to come from the same pen. The Chevy looked to be a melted version of the ’65, though I appreciate it more, these days. The Ford has the visual substance of a Kenworth, which was good for sales, I’m sure. None of them is unattractive, but If I was thinking of trading in my ’65 Fury, I might keep it a few more years.

A new car lot shopper in 1967 wouldn’t have much luck finding a ’67 Impala equipped as the one in this road test (396 engine, 3 speed automatic, dashboard gauge cluster).

What they would had discovered, row after row after row of new cars lined up behind the Chevy dealership, would had probably been a 283 (maybe a lone 327) V8 engine, 2 speed Powerglide tranny, and a dashboard full of idiot lights.

“Motor Trend” magazine had a distinct Chevy/GM bias; perhaps because of General Motor’s massive advertising budget.

A 383/Torqueflite Fury, equipped with the bench seat with fold down center arm rest, would had been my 1967 choice. (Although I like the trimmer 1965/66 body better.)

It’s funny you mention the GM bias-It jumped out at me as I was reading this. It was like they gave the game away to the clever reader, the sort that understood a celebrity-driven car with 1,000 miles but most assuredly had not been serviced was in fact a specially-prepped ringer. Everyone else, of course, read what was there to be read-This Chevy was so good it was fit to be driven by a celebrity without servicing for 1,000 miles, so obviously all Chevies can’t be junk because this one isn’t.

Also interesting is that the Ford did not get a thorough discussion of quality, unlike the others. The Plymouth got a section dedicated to its quality woes. The Chevy got a section dedicated to its fantastic assembly. The Ford, despite being lauded for its build quality in the summary section, got no discussion of it except for the misplaced ashtray in the actual text of the article.

A new car shopper in 1967 wouldn’t have found row after row of new cars lined up behind the dealership. They just didn’t stock them like they do today. The average buyer was more likely to test drive the salesman’s personal demonstrator then set down with the salesman and an order sheet to spec out the exact car they wanted and there was nothing special about doing so. It was just ordering your new car. Sure there were cars on the lot you could drive home today but that was not the norm at the time. It wasn’t until the 70’s and Chrysler starting their “sales bank” that they started incentivizing buying off the lot with rebates for the consumer and deals for the dealers that would take cars out of the sales bank. Oldsmobile marked this transition clearly when they changed the tag line used in their ads from the “Can we build one for you?” to “We built one for you” in 1979. When it was time for a new family car in 1977 my Dad ordered our new Wagon exactly the way he wanted it, a Caprice with few options instead of an Impala optioned up to Caprice equipment levels because that name would, in theory, mean a few extra dollars at trade in time.

It’s my understanding that you could still get a better deal on a car if you agreed to buy one right from the lot, as opposed to having the dealer order a car for you. Plus, some dealers were reluctant to order really specialized cars with unusual equipment combinations, because if you backed out of the deal, the dealer could be stuck with a car that was difficult to sell.

Some would say that the salesman wasn’t doing his job if he let someone buy from the lot. Get them in there with the low advertised price of the base 6cyl Bel Air and sell them a V8 powered Impala, complete with automatic, power steering and power brakes.

geeber

Posted August 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM

A dealer wouldn’t want the inventory sitting on the lot too long. Every day a car sat there, it was costing the dealer more money.

On the gauge cluster, you’re probably right, but a couple of other consumer-oriented articles from this period noted that by ’67, the 327 was becoming increasingly common on both the Impala and the Caprice — it wasn’t much more expensive than the 283 and provided noticeably better punch.

The first car I remember my mom having was a 67 Impala in a light green metallic with a darker green vinyl top and a green interior. Same wheel covers as the cars pictured. Bench seat. I want to say it was 327; that seems my first exposure to the V emblem on the fenders. I only have good memories of that car cause I was little. I was born in 66 and not sure if she bought it new or used. Replaced with a 72 torino plain jane model. And she always had coupes since it was just the two of us. Her first 4 door was in the late 90s with a Camry.

It’s not shown in any of the photos, but the next step down from the Sport Fury was the Fury III which, to me, had a better looking hardtop roof. It’s the one I would have went with, maybe even with the new-for-’67 LA 318 V8. It wouldn’t have won any drag races, but for everyday transportation, it would have been fine.

It’s interesting to note that none of the test cars came with an optional passenger side rear view mirror.

No, you are not. As much as I am indifferent to the 67 Ford, I think the 65 is THE best 60s full sized Ford (let down a bit by it’s clunky dashboard).
Yet, the 65 and 67 Chevy are very close. The 67 Impala takes the light and breezy styling of the 65 and gives it some maturity. If the Chevy were a woman (and the 65 puts me in mind of Kim Kardashian) the 65 would be a teenager of about 17 or 18. The 66 would be the same woman in her 30s (a bit polished, but still able to dance most of the night away in a classy nightclub), while the 67 is a woman in her 40s….she wears tasteful clothes, accessorized perfectly, but if she goes out for the evening it’s more likely to a ballet or opera.

By contrast (?) the 65,66,and 67 Plymouth look like 3 sisters…the 65 and 66 ALMOST look like twins, while the 67 is older…but not older looking enough to be a youngish aunt.

Another fan of the ’65’s, then and now. Though I was only ten years old in 1967, thus not really a car buyer, I would have picked the Plymouth then. Because Mopar. Now, I’d take the Chevy, and would trade it in on a ’65 Chevy.

Among this particular threesome, picking the one I’d most want to own, I’d go with the Chevy. Sure, it’s a facelift of the 65, but this is one instance where the facelifted car give it’s gorgeous original a real run for the money.
However, I would not be too upset by the Plymouth if I found a showroom condition example today. Equipped decently, it is quite appealing, though somehow still looks like it must be a few hundred dollars cheaper than a comparable Ford or Chevy.

As much as I am a true fan of Fords, the 67 kind of leaves me cold. I’d much rather have a 67 Mercury than a Ford, or Chevy, it just seems to look a bunch classier than the 3 cars here. Unfortunately, the instrument panel of the Mercury lets it down compared to the Chevy…even if the Chevy doesn’t have the full set of gauges.

The Pontiac? I would say it’s an “interesting” alternative to the Chevy.

The handling prowess of the Plymouth appeals to me, and I like the roofline but the nose is my least favorite and the assembly quality concerns me. It’d be either that or the Ford, which I find to be the most attractive of the three and has the most comfort, even if it’s the least athletic. I don’t dislike the ’67 Chevy at all, but it has always struck me as sort of a caricature of the ’65. The fender “hips” are too exaggerated, for one, and the detailing on the front end is inconsistent.

I loved this test and the idea of comparing these three. Am I the only one wondering why they didn’t test a Galaxie 500 XL against the Sport Fury and the Impala SS?

Having owned both a 67 Galaxie 500 convertible and a 66 Fury III sedan, I am intrigued by the Chevy. The Turbo Hydramatic transmission solved a major problem for Chevrolet and the 396 was a very good engine. This may have been the only time in the 60s where I could see picking the Chevy, on the strength of what I just mentioned and on the car’s really really good looks. But other than looks (and resale value) a between-the-lines read is that it is a good compromise but is not outstanding at any one thing.

But I would still have had a tough choice between the Ford and the Plymouth. I guess the question was what did you want? A well built, well finished cruiser that was glass smooth and whisper quiet? Or a responsive, taut handling big car with some assembly niggles to deal with.

The powertrains both great, but in different ways. The 390/Cruise-O-Matic was just a smooth torquemonster. OTOH, there are few more gratifying sensations than being propelled by a 383/Torqueflite. Guys, I really can’t decide here. I guess it would depend on what was on the lot of each dealer and what kind of a deal I was offered on each.

A 500 XL would have been a much better fit in a test with a Sport Fury and Impala SS. It looks like the testers knew it, too, since they included a photo of a 500 XL with buckets and console like the Plymouth and Chevy came with.

A lot of these old tests were done pretty much with whatever the manufacturers supplied. The really bad comparisons were with the musclecars where the array of a la carte options was much wider. But in this case, I wonder if Ford’s somewhat ambiguous naming (unlike the clear sporting pretension of the other two) might have confused whomever requested the test cars.

My choice – 1967 Ford. I admire the looks of the ’60s Fords; always have so I’ll take the Ford.

But I must mention how goofy those ’67 Ford steering wheels were. That year, and that year only, Ford had that big safety hub thing sticking straight out towards the driver. It was odd looking and somewhat disconcerting. I had wheel time behind two different ’67 Ford wagons and did not like that hub at all.

In contrast, the Chevrolet steering wheel style illustrated in the MT article is simple, sporty and quite attractive.

As I recall, Ford was a little slow in getting a collapsible steering column to market to meet a new safety regulation. They were able to meet the standard with the foam-filled center hub before they got an actual collapsible column like everyone else.

I always found them fascinating, in an odd way, and preferred them to the even clunkier 1968 steering wheels. They were sure an easy way to identify any 1967 FoMoCo vehicle.

Coming from a Mopar-inclined family, I really want to say that I’d have been a Sport Fury buyer in ’67. I do think I’d have leaned heavily toward the Fury for its handling prowess and interior, but that roof treatment really leaves me cold, and the ’67 “improvements” in styling really ruined the beautiful ’65, as other have mentioned.

I actually like the boxy Plymouth. If only I could have the handling and dash-lighting of the Plymouth, combined with the Ford’s ride and interior quality, and the brakes and instruments of the Impala SS.
If I had to pick, I’d probably go with the SS. Maybe adding a suspension upgrade.
But as someone else pointed out, those might have been hard to find on dealer lots.

I was surprised to see front disc brakes were available on all three. When I worked in a shop back in the day, it was rare to see disc brakes on any pre 1970 American car, outside of the most expensive brands.

Also interesting are the adjusted price estimates in the $2500+ range for factory AC in these cars.
This April, I added it to my ’96 Toyota Tacoma Pickup. Using a combination or used and new parts, and my labor, it cost about $420.
My prior online research found a Nippondenso Tacoma ‘factory’ AC kit for $1700, and an aftermarket Tacoma system for $1300, not including labor.
Since it seems everything today comes with AC standard, I’ll have to check out some new-car stickers to see if any even list an extra charge for it anymore.

The only vehicle I can think of that currently doesn’t have standard A/C is the Jeep Renegade. The A/C is part of an option package that includes cruise control and power heated mirrors, so the $1,495 price isn’t a great comparison for adjusted value.

A weird thought that pops into my head looking at these three cars in comparison to their 1965 predecessors is, “This is where the bloat started”. As I look at the restyled versions of the ’65’s that arrived in ’67 it just seems like in all cases the designers were directed to go “out”, in every direction. The ’65 full size cars from the big 3 were some of the most beautiful and svelte designs ever, IMO. All the frivolity, roundness and gewgaws of the ’50’s were gone and the heaviness, re-envisioned roundness and impractical obesity of the 70’s hadn’t yet reared its ugly head. ’67 seems to have been the beginning of the turning point, as these cars just look like they’d each gained the automotive equivalent of the “Freshman 15” in 1967. Just a little rounder, a little more stretched out, a little heavier…all as a precursor to the nightmares ahead.

Part of the change you mention was driven by the success of the intermediates in general, plus the success of the Pontiac GTO, in particular.

With strong GTO sales, the full-size performance car was clearly on the way out by 1967. And the intermediates in general just seemed more youthful.

The full-size cars were clearly going for the “luxury look” by this point (no full-size fastbacks at GM and Chrysler by the 1969 model year, for example), and were aimed at a more “mature” audience. If you wanted something more svelte, you bought an intermediate.

But people who bought full-size cars wanted a BIG car. At least, for a few more years…sales of the intermediates would steadily grow over the next decade, while full-size car sales began a slow decline during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I’m honestly not sure which one I’d pick if I had to choose. I love the idea of the quiet well-built Ford, but I also like the idea of the handling Plymouth. As for looks, they’re honestly all kinda homely in their own specific ways and comely in others. It was like each one of the three hit one part of the design well-If I could take a mash-up of the Chevy front end (never liked the stacked headlights!), the Ford profile, and the Plymouth rear end, there’d be a decent-looking car.

This is a case in which I’d have actually had to drive each of them in turn to see how much the quality concerns and handling and quiet impacted my feelings on them.

Those sales ratios sort of played themselves out on the street we moved to in 1969. The block of 12 homes were similar and built by the same builder, so the socio-economic strata was pretty even, with a major bias to low price three big cars. Most homes had two or more cars.

Chevy was represented by a ’57 Bel-Air and ’59, ’61, ’64 ’67, ’68(X2), and ’69 Impalas.

Ford had ’62, ’63 Galaxies and a ’65 Country Squire.

Plymouth had a shiny new ’70 Fury III as its only representative.

Nine of the 12 homes had at least one low price three big car! And, the homes trended loyal to the brands. The Plymouth home was loyal to Plymouth with Furys to the bitter end with an M body.

The Chevy homes did wander a bit to Ford in the ’70s, until the ’77 GM B body made history.

Our house was knee deep in ’67 and ’68 Chevies when I grew up, and I eventually owned a ’67 Galaxie 500 coupe. Interestingly I don’t recall the Galaxie being the sloppy handler that my dad’s ’76 LTD was.

The box Panther always reminded me of the ’65-’67 Fords. If Ford had to get stuck in a time warp with the Panther, its a shame it wasn’t a ’67 instead of the ’79.

Hard choice for me between the Plymouth and the Ford, both my favorite designs of the decade for those brands. Too bad they muffed the facelifts on the subsequent model years.

I consider 67 peak styling years for both. The Chevrolet peak year,[ and I’m in total agreement, GN ] was 65.

Plymouth’s facelift for 68 destroyed all the delicate details of the 67: tail lights, the subtle peak in the trunk, belt line and grille.

Same thing with the Ford: ham handed changes to the tails, the grille I often mistook for a 66 Mercury, and the one on the LTD didn’t have the distinction of the 67, even with the trendy hidden headlights. Peak year for Mercury too.

But they never change individually year to year, it’s just one big 4-8 year cycle and, bam, “all new” successor. It’s not like the 60s were devoid of segments, there was a compact, ponycar, midsize, full size, truck and van for the low price three in 1967, all of which were annually updated, even if just in trim.

I prefer the Ford. The smoothed off lines compared to the ’65 just look so “right”. Especially the rear view. My Dad had a couple of year old ’67 Bel Air wagon, which gave me the overall impression of being big and cheap. Even my Dad thought that it was a little too plain. My Uncle was a Mopar man. He had a ’63 Plymouth Sport Fury coupe which always struck me as being a high performance car.

1967 was the last year I liked the full sized cars. 1968 brought more safety features and a cheapening of the interiors. For example, the inside pillar and headliner trim was polished aluminum up to 1967. The 1968 models went to plastic. I knew something was going wrong somewhere in the car world, but didn’t know exactly what.

Of course I’m talking about Chevy.

With the advent of the 1968 models, I turned to the mid-sizers and compact and pony cars. Chevelle, Nova & Camaro.

All others really didn’t matter to me, except the 1967 Mustang – my favorite Ford because it was just the right size. Ditto for the 1968 Mustang as well.

I also must mention the Plymouth Barracuda, too. Additionally, Dodge Charger gets a big nod.

Actually, my father bought a 68 Impala Custom Coupe brand new, my first car was(still own it) a 68 Impala Convertible, and I’ve owned a 68 Nova SS since 1977. Additionally, I’ve owned a 68 Chevelle, and have owned four 69 Impalas. None of these had plastic inside A pillars. In 68, GM went to metal pillars with a thick foam core, covered by vinyl. This continued through 70 on full size cars. With the 71 redesign, the pillars became painted metal and that continued until the 77 redesign, at which time they became plastic. My father also bought a 74 Impala brand new and it most definitely had metal interior A pillars. I currently own a 67, 68, and two 69 Impalas and I’ve always liked the 68 better than the 67, the 65 better than the 66, and the 69 better than the 70. Overall I think 65-70 was the best period for styling of the big Chevrolet. I remember my Dad looking at 67’s new and commenting that the back end could belong to anything from a Mercury to a Plymouth. To him, it didn’t look Chevy enough. Interestingly, he always thought the 69 Dodge rear endlookedtoo much like a 67 Chevy….

Decontenting seemed to start in 1968. Always loved the polished aluminum trim Zack mentioned and missed its disappearance this year. Also, I recall a friends parents new ’68 Impala convertible. No dual exhausts on the 396 and I was shocked to see a blank plate in lieu of the now optional clock. Geez, my elderly aunt even had a standard clock on her 1954 Chevy 210. Ford got in the act in 1969, when the LTD was basically a Galaxie 500 with hidden headlights. No clock and the steering wheel was straight out of a taxicab. You had to pony up for the optional brougham trim package to get what was standard before.

The trend has been repeated over and over since. Little niceties disappear that the manufacturer doesn’t think we’ll notice.

How is it in the price specifications that the Chevy SS had both Hydramatic and a 4-speed listed?

All the praise of disc brakes, well both Ford and Chrysler Corp were using Kelsey-Hayes (Single Piston design), but GM was using the Moraine double piston design. They are notorious for developing leakage at the seals, requiring rebuilding every other pad replacement.

I for one, would take a 67 Pontiac Catalina Convertible with the 8-lug wheel option as opposed to the dreaded GM discs. I believe GM went to a single piston design in 1968, don’t know if it was a production decision or a service decision.

What always sticks out to me reading these old tests is how close everyone priced their options. Many things were separated by just a few pennies between the brands. 16 cents separated the AM radio pricing, 15 cent spread on Power Steering and a whopping 30 cents difference for the 4sp trans.

To me that says we want to be priced exactly at the competition in the consumer’s eye, but don’t want to stir up any thoughts of price fixing in the regulator’s mind. Sure a dollar went a lot further in 1967 but I doubt anyone walked across the street to save 16 cents on power steering, nor would the dealer let them go for under $1.

The other thing that is so hard to believe from today’s perspective is the rant about the Ford’s ashtray, going so far as to say that it was much more important to have easy access to it than a Radio. Of course the ashtray and lighter is all but extinct today. It became a dealer installed “smoker’s package” that replaces the power point socket with one that would accept a lighter element and an ashtray that fit in one of the cup holder spots for most cars. This is not the only review I’ve seen where they rant about the poor placement of the ashtray or its size.

And the beanbag ashtrays they mention in the road test – I remember more than one old smoker who used one of those sitting on top of the dash instead of a badly positioned ash tray. Of course many just used the vent window to flick the ashes outside.

Tough choices here. I agree with the comments above about the beginning of bloat evident in each of these designs and that the 1965 models represented the zenith of 1960s full-size car design. GM was advancing in that direction more quickly than the others, with the 1967 lineup pushing the boundaries of the Coke-bottle hips to an extreme. At the other end of the spectrum, Chrysler’s full-size offerings were conservative to the point of being stodgy, perfect for Miss Jane Hathaway.

That leaves me with the Ford, which had evolved the most tastefully from its 1965 predecessor. Also, its quiet, smooth ride and better assembly quality appeal to me, and the attendant sloppiness in handling was not the big compromise it became in the 1970s. As the MT author noted, the margins of difference between best and worst here are quite small, so it really comes down to a matter of taste. For me, the 1967 Galaxie was the way to go.

The only one that looks better to me than its ’65-’66 predecessor is the Plymouth, except for that goofy two door hardtop roofline. It would have to be a four door, bench seat model, more fitting in a big car. Intermediates had become the “sporty” ones by then.

Having said that, buying new, I would have taken the Impala based on resale, balance, workmanship and interior style. Plus, the 396/TH400 was the newest “tech” of the three back then.

Of these 3, the Ford was the one that stayed true to the design featured here (that is, body on frame, V8, and most importantly….RWD) before being made obsolete.

The Chevy’s styling could be said to have remained consistent from 1958 (when quad headlights were 1st used) right up through the 2017 models. About the only thing about the styling that changed at the front was the grille texture, and lately the grille became obviously divided into 2 levels.

The Plymouth? Well, what, 10 years after this test the Fury name is applied to an intermediate sized car….then eventually the whole Plymouth brand has disappeared.

I’d pick the ’67 Chevy. My dad had a ’63 Impala while my grandfather had a ’66. followed by a ’69, which I inherited and believe was the best car I’ve ever had. I also had an ’86 Caprice which I thought of as a nod to the past. Here’s what I think about the ’67s styling, which has taken me a little getting used to over the years, but which I very much like. It seems very much to be an updated Mod Style to fit the Swinging Sixties, even with a dash of the psychedelic in its exaggerated taillights, roofline, metal around the headlights, bucket seats, console, big gauges, and general swagger. It perfectly represents 1967 to me, and I’ll take it.

Of the three, the Fury would be my pick, because I actually prefer the more conservative look it employs. It does not surprise me that the review highlights poor workmanship in the Plymouth. As we have all heard before, Chry. Co. products of the era had the notorious reputation of lottery-ticket like workmanship. I personally find that reputation strange, as my Father’s Parents were Mopar people, and they apparently “won” that lottery every time and ended up with a quality car (out of the ’62 Newport, ’67 Valiant, ’74 Newport, and ’74 Scamp, Dad says the ’62 was indestructible; hence why it wasn’t replaced until ’74). I wonder how much luck involved with their cars came down to buying them from the same (and likely very scrupulous) dealership; Fury motors in South Saint Paul, MN, still exists to this day. That said, the engineering aspect of Chry. Co. was always excelent then, and looking at the speedometer error measurements from this test are a good indicator of that fact.

Maybe he was? I do know my family were not the kind of people to defer maintenance, so there is that. Grandad ordered that car to specifically haul around their Airstream (same for the ’62), so it was a towing packaged equipped 440. The extra heavy duty equipment probably didn’t hurt. It was also a very unusual color for a Chrysler then; Sunfire Yellow with a black vinyl top. I know a lot of people say the strangled engines that year really hurt performance, but dad swears that thing could eat up the ’62 with the 361 alive.

I was at a car show in Seattle area about 10 years ago and a guy was looking at a Mopar of this era, trying to figure whether it had been made on the production line he worked. He said he and his cohorts would sometimes leave something loose or untethered behind the dash, when they were feeling ornery towards management. Can’t verify it, but that’s what I heard.

I go with the Ford, but make it an XL hardtop coupe with the 390 V-8 and front disc brakes.

Second choice would be the Plymouth, but I’ve always thought that the 1967-68 Plymouth Furys looked best as a four-door hardtop, and that red one in the advertisement confirms that for me (the hardtop coupe that Motor Trend apparently used for this test also makes a good case for the hardtop sedan). Make it a VIP hardtop sedan with the 383 V-8 and front disc brakes.

You know, I have to agree that the four-door hardtop version of the Fury does look better balanced than either of the two-door hardtop styles. Plus, it doesn’t have the concave sheetmetal stampings popular with other Chrysler offerings at the time. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest it was an obvious attempt by Chrysler to ape the similar 1965 Ford LTD.

A four-door hardtop ’67 VIP would certainly be nice, but the Fury III as pictured in the advertisement isn’t bad, either. I might have taken a well-optioned version of the latter and saved the cash.

Sorry, none of the above! Here’s my choice. Rather insulting, that such a good car was left out of the comparison – the Ambassador beat the others in many categories, was better-trimmed and equipped, and prices were very competitive.

IIRC, The Ambassador was marketed above the low price three and would have been fodder for a comparo with the likes of Dodge, Mercury and Pontiac (perhaps Olds too?). AMC was in it’s market expansion mode at this point, and Ambassador was the “Now! Luxury car”, affordable perhaps, but “above”…

IDK if AMC had A/C as standard first, But what is known is that AMC component, Nash had the “Weather Eye” HVAC system. It was the “Gold Standard” in it’s day and basically the foundation of all modern automotive HVAC systems.

+1 on the ’67 Ambassador convertible! IMO, the 1967-’69 Ambassador styling was the most appealing Teague and staff ever produced.

My overall nod would have to go to the Chevy now. Back in those days, Fords were the family choice but a bit of exposure to my grandparent’s ’67 Bel Air sedan opened my mind to take a more equitable view of other makes. Fords exposed their penchant for rusty frames very quickly here in the northeast, something difficult for diehard Ford loyalist to ignore.

I find it surprising that the Plymouth, with 14 inch wheels and a 3.23:1 axle ratio, is not faster in the acceleration test. It was quickest to 45, but then seems to slow down. It does have to upshift to third before the quarter mile is over, so that may be part of it. The other two both have 15 inch wheels and 2.73 or so:1 axle ratios. Both are in low gear longer and then in second through the quarter mile.

It’s been my observation (don’t ask me HOW I know this, Ha Ha!) that if a Mopar Torqueflite automatic is acceleration tested with the transmission in the “Drive” position the acceleration times will be slower than if the driver “hand shifted” the car from 1 to 2 to Drive.

Unless careful and precise adjustment is done to the shift linkage, a Torqueflite will “short shift” if you leave it in Drive and floor it.

During the 1960’s and 1970’s, I recall “Car & Driver” magazine getting better zero to sixty and better quarter mile acceleration numbers than the other car magazines did. Their test drivers really did “ring out the car” to the max potential.

Again, please don’t ask me how I know the difference between these two methods.

I note that the shift points for all three are at 4500 RPM’s. I also did some looking at the old car brochures for Plymouth and found that the standard axle ratio for the automatic was 2.94:1. But the Plymouths 2nd gear speed of 74 @4500 is much slower than the Ford or Chevy at 86 or so. So I am inclined to think that the 3.23:1 ratio is correct. But if the Plymouth would be quicker with the shifts at higher speeds, then I think that the Chevy would also be quicker with the engine held to about 5000 RPMs.

I think that the Plymouth must have had 15 inch wheels because they show that it has optional disk brakes, which on one of the pages is supposed to come with 15 inch wheels. Then the 3.23:1 axle ratio makes sense, although I don’t see that it gets much advantage from it.

I think it is truly the era one grows up in. Many Boomer-era folks say that the prewar cars all look the same to them. GMs 80s crap was all pretty similar across divisions, but as a kid in the early 80s I could spot a LeSabre vs a Bonneville vs an 88 at 40 paces. Subjectively, to me these look about as differentiated as any of the modern fastback midsize sedans (Fusion, Sonata, 200, etc.)

I came of age in the boy band era, it all sounded the same to me then. Bought an old AC/DC album when all my friends bought *NSYNC, and have been listening to music on average 10 years before I was born ever since. Also like muscle cars, old TV and movies more than anything in my lifetime.

James Slick

Posted August 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM

I hear ya there. I grew up in the early 70s and my music preference is mostly 50s-60’s! I thought all of the “soft rock” of the early 70s and especially the “disco” of the later 70s “sounded” alike.! I didn’t get the differences in 70s music until later. Something about things being common tends to blur perception, I guess. This certainly applied to cars as well. When new a Cutlass and a Monte Carlo were new they were “All alike…” , I didn’t even get into muscle cars until later, My “thing” was 50s cars – I knew them all! One’s “wheelhouse” isn’t always in one’s exact time! I prefer radio dramas that aired 20 years before I was born to 99% of current TV.! Well I’m going to crank up some Howlin’ Wolf and Etta James records while lusting over my neighbors ’56 Pontiac! Cheers!

Can’t go wrong with any of those cars! However, like many of the folks who did not buy Plymouths, I would choose the Pontiac. I absolutely love 65/66 full size Ponchos, and I actually like the 67 facelift quite a lot. 68 is OK, but I prefer the vertical headlight look. 69 and 70 lost some appeal, IMO.

Of the low priced 3 in 1967, I’d take the Ford. I think it’s a very well done car, style-wise, both inside and out. In fact, I think it’s the last year full size Fords were truly attractive. The 68 just looks awkward to me, with oddly curved wheel openings and uninspired grill.

My first choice is the Galaxie but I wouldn’t kick that SS out of my driveway. I agree with several posters above that the Fury looks much better as a 4 door hardtop, that backward kickup quarter glass just looks weird.

I like the styling on all of these but I would want to sit in the driver’s seat and feel the comfort and overall feel of the car – then I would make a decision. Based on looks alone? I think the Chevy and Ford are tied – the Plymouth a bit more “matronly” if you will.

Of the three I would get a used ’66 Galaxy 500 7 Liter or buy a new Mercury Cougar XR7. I would choose a Catalina over an Impala, and would pick the other 2 door roof on a Fury.

I was only 4 when the ’67s debuted, by the late 1970s I thought those ’67-’68 GM biggie fastbacks were some of the ugliest, oversized cars on the road, especially when covered in rust. In my opinion the ’65-’66 GM fastbacks aged somewhat better, but not as well as the ’69-’70 GM B-bodies and the nearly timeless ’61-’64 GM hardtops. The ultimate beater when I was in High School was a 1970 blue 4 door Chevy Biscayne.